2012 Ford Fusion Sel on 2040-cars
770 Columbus Ave, Lebanon, Ohio, United States
Engine:2.5L I4 16V MPFI DOHC
Transmission:Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 3FAHP0JA6CR245952
Stock Num: X70215A
Make: Ford
Model: Fusion SEL
Year: 2012
Exterior Color: Blue
Interior Color: Charcoal Black
Options: Drive Type: FWD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 21871
** Loaded ** ** Super Clean ** ** Perfect History Report ** ** Priced To Move ** Come see this 2012 Ford Fusion SEL. This Fusion has the following options: Front/rear floor mats, Rear window defroster, Front wheel drive, Pwr door locks, Body-color door handles, Front/rear stabilizer bars, Speed control, SecuriLock passive anti-theft system, Pwr remote trunk release, Compact spare tire. It has an Automatic transmission and a Gas I4 2.5L/152 engine. All prices reflect our policy of SPECIAL INTERNET ONLY PRICING. In order to insure you the best possible no-haggle price available you must present a printout of this ad upon arrival. We pride ourselves in making sure that our pricing reflects a fair market price when compared to similar vehicles listed by our competition. Prices do not include tax, title, license & doc fees.
Ford Fusion for Sale
2014 ford fusion se(US $25,055.00)
2014 ford fusion se(US $25,340.00)
2014 ford fusion se(US $25,740.00)
2014 ford fusion se(US $25,740.00)
2014 ford fusion se(US $25,850.00)
2014 ford fusion se(US $26,135.00)
Auto Services in Ohio
West Side Garage ★★★★★
Wally Armour Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram ★★★★★
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
Tucker Bros Auto Wrecking Co ★★★★★
Tire Discounters Inc ★★★★★
Terry`s Auto Service ★★★★★
Auto blog
1979 Dodge Li'l Red Express in Generation Gap showdown with 1933 Ford Pickup
Fri, 18 Jul 2014Auto enthusiasts love a good debate, whether it's Mustang versus Camaro or Ferrari against Lamborghini. But how about a battle between two very different vintages of classic pickup trucks? In this case, the fight is between a 1979 Dodge Li'l Red Express and a 1933 Ford Model 46 truck with a flathead V8.
The shootout comes courtesy of the internet series Generation Gap, and its concept is super-simple. One guy prefers classics, and the other likes newer rides. They choose a category, pick two vehicles and put them head to head. In this case, neither is exactly modern, though. The Ford is more than old enough to receive Social Security checks, and the Dodge is hardly a young whippersnapper.
Other than both being pickups, these two models were made to serve very different functions. The Li'l Red Express was basically the progenitor of today's muscle trucks, with a big V8 that made it one of the quickest new models in its day (admittedly, 1979 was a rough time for automotive performance). On the other hand, the '33 Ford was just meant to work, with little pretense for anything else. One of the hosts describes it as "the simplest, most difficult" vehicle he's driven because of the tricky double clutchwork necessary to shift gears. Scroll down to watch the video and try to decide which of these two American classics you would rather have in your garage.
NHTSA probing 2000-2003 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable models over throttle issue
Mon, 29 Oct 2012A potential issue with the speed control cable collar has got the 2003-20003 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable under the spotlight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If the collar breaks it can cause the throttle to be stuck open.
The issue is limited to vehicles with the 3.0-liter V6 Duratec. There are just 50 complaints so far out of 310,000 cars, but the NHTSA has begun an investigation into whether a recall should be issued.
After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality
Fri, Jan 3 2014Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.